Science and Religion III: Hoc est corpus meum

Oh dear. I'm in trouble.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that
to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread
which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

This does seem to put me at odds with the twenty-eighth Article of Religion. Why? Because I believe in Transubstantiation. That's not to say I insist that everyone accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I do insist that the Presence of Christ is Real in the Sacrament, but I appreciate that some find an explanation as to how Christ is present contrary to the Mystery of the Sacrament. However, the doctrine of Transubstantiation for me best describes the Mystery, i.e. shows why it is mysterious: it doesn't explain the Mystery.

According to Aristotle, matter consists of two parts, the accident and the substance. The substance of a chair is the chair as itself, it is separate from notions of shape, size or texture which constitute the accident. Going back to the idea of observability and unobservability, the accident of the chair is that which is encountered by observation, the substance of the chair is of necessity unobservable.

Thus at the consecration in Mass, the substance of the the host (or wafer) is changed into the actual body of Christ; the accidents however remain unchanged. Simple, yes? This doctrine says what has happened, it doesn't actually say how it has happened, or where the substance of the wafer has gone. One could say that part of the Mystery is why the Lord bothers in the first place. Then we move into the Mystery of the Love of God which is a vast yet gloriously beautiful, ecstatic andbewildering place to be.

Transubstatiation only really works if the believer holds on to the idea of Aristotelian physics. There is no reason why anyone should hold to this, and I hope this explains why I don't insist on everybody holding to the same doctrine which I do.

What may strike you as odd is why a mathematician should hang onto Aristotelian Physics which is not apparently mainstream Science.

Actually I disagree. There is something inherently quantum about Aristotelian Physics. It talks about observables and unobservables, just as quantum physics does. Quantum physics states that the action of observation changes that which is being observed. If we know a particle's speed, then we don't actually know where it is. If we know where a particle is, then we don't know how fast it's going. One or other aspect of the quantum particle is unobservable.

Thus in quantum physics, matter has observable and unobservable quantities and qualities. Some of these quantities and qualities are potentially observable/measurable such as speed or position, and therefore do not disappear into the notion of spiritual existence as I postulated in part two. This does rather seem to indicate that at the instant a measurement is taken, a quality of the particle is translated to the observable (quantum-accidental) and another is translated to the unobservable (quantum-substantial) if one takes a quantum-Aristotelian point of view.

For some complicated structure as a communion wafer, it is simply not possible to chart the observable and unobservable parts. Thus there is the possibility of a quantum-Transubstantiation.

However, this is all beside the point. I'm not a great believer in quantum theory either, so this is all a little academic exercise for me. I accept Aristotelian Physics rather than quantum-Aristotelian physics, for the reason that Aristotelian Physics points to the transcendence of the observable which the eye does not see, nor the ear hear. It does not explain them, but merely stipulates the existence of the unobservable nature of Reality. It is there there that God Himself moves, unobserved and unobservable. After all, you cannot get any more real than God.